Crews: I was invited by the World Intellectual Property Organization to undertake this study. I had the pleasure of sharing a program in the United Arab Emirates with an official from WIPO, and she put in the recommendation that I do the project. I had long been interested in the issues. They are central to much of my work for libraries and universities, and I have written about the U.S. library provision in some of my publications. The chance to do a major worldwide study was an invitation I was quick to accept.

Minow: How do the United States exceptions for libraries compare to other countries?

Crews: The U.S. statute on library issues is Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Like the statutes from most countries, it focuses on the terms and conditions under which a library may make copies of a work for a user’s private study, and copies for preservation or replacement of lost or damaged works in the library collections. Those issues are the most common topics of the statutes from all parts of the world. The U.S. law also includes a provision on copies for interlibrary loans, and not many countries have addressed that issue.

On the other hand, the U.S. law is distinctive in many ways. On the issue of preservation and replacement, for example, the law allows up to three copies, and it explicitly permits digital reproductions. Some countries explicitly permit digital technologies, other countries do not mention specific format, leaving the matter open to debate. Yet other countries clearly limit library copying to reprographic copies that are not digital. Interestingly, two other countries have modeled their statute on the U.S. language of Section 108: Liberia and South Africa. However, both of those countries used the form of the statute as we enacted it in 1978. The U.S. added the language about digital copying in 1998, but neither of the other countries adopted that change.

Minow: Did you find any surprises when you were conducting your study?

Crews: I think I was surprised at nearly every point in the study. The most interesting finding has been the trends in statutory language. The U.S. language influenced only two other countries. By contrast, the United Kingdom has a relatively elaborate statute, and one can see the influence of that model in the shape of the laws in many former U.K. colonies, such as Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and elsewhere. In fact, the U.S., being also a former colony, vaguely follows the U.K. model.

I could see other trends. For example, the European Union issued a directive in 2001 that mentioned library exceptions, and as a result, most EU countries have addressed the issues in a similar manner. I could also see a pattern of countries in Africa that have adopted a simple and terse library statute that is flexible and generally free of the detail embodied in the U.S. or U.K. examples. Finally, I found geographical groupings of countries that have no library copyright statute at all. Clearly, countries seem to be learning from one another, often from their neighbors, when they make decisions about the exact shape of copyright law.

The Copyright Office has posted the 19 comments it received (Due Dec. 2) this round concerning the Exemptions to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies. Mailed submissions will be added to the site later.

The Library Copyright Alliance and Music Library Association recommended a proposed class of audiovisual works included in a library of a college or university, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by professors.

They note that in the last round, a narrow exemption was granted for audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.

This argue that the exemption should be broadened to apply to audiovisual works included in any college or university library, not just the library of the media studies department. Second, it should apply to classroom uses by instructors in all subjects, not just media studies or film professors. For example, an English professor teaching MacBeth should be able to put together clips of a scene from various productions.

The comments respond to a Notice of Inquiry to identify proposed classes of works by the Copyright Office published in the Federal Register Oct. 6, 2008. Comments on those proposed classes are due February 2, 2009.

Larry Lessig points out that the Obama team is now using a the freest creative commons license on its change.gov site. This meshes well with the principles of open government, though it doesn’t go so far as to dedicate the content to the public domain.

Secondary Content

On January 28, 2014, Stanford’s Program in Law, Science & Technology hosted the discussion, “Congratulations, you have an app – now what? App Development and Marketing from A-Z.” The discussion featured a panel of high level, experienced practitioner who provide tips, checklists and a road map for addressing legal considerations relating to mobile apps, including best practices for mobile TOU and Privacy Policies, platform considerations and much more.